W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Request to Reconsider Alt Guidance Location

From: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 08:19:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAEhSh3dCupZ4eDpiAoDi5GPJtZ84KV+ibiOtrb5zth6pbdUL5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, HTML Accessibility Task Force <public-html-a11y@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Steven Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> wrote:
> You're misapprehending WCAG 2.

Citation required.

> It is intentionally designed to be a "living specification." I'm aware
> I'm using terminology particular to HTML, and even particular to
> WHAT-HTML. That's intentional on my part--something you could more
> readily relate to, imo.

WHATWG HTML has changing normative requirements. WCAG 2 does not.

> The core WCAG 2 is indeed static.

> The Techniques (and associated failure and success criteria) are
> intended to be dynamic

Sorry, this is

, and readily updatable in order to keep pace
> with, and to remain relevant to technology development. As per the
> citations I've previously provided, these are the intended ways to
> update WCAG 2. It is the nonstatic part of WCAG 2 -- by design.

 "Core WCAG 2", as you call it, is the only source of normative
requirements for WCAG 2 and it freezes the success criteria for WCAG
2. The Understanding and Techniques do not define additional success
criteria. They are explicitly not normative, as the citations I've
provided testify.

The CP claims normative requirements will be created by updating the
Techniques, but the Techniques are not normative, so the CP does not
make sense.

Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 08:20:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:20 UTC